But if Sacchi was found employed at Lausanne and at Scharnitz in the way he was ready to prove, could their lordships refuse to inquire into the whole of the circumstances? If he could prove that the agents of that commission were ever authorized to do acts of bribery, could he be told that they must be proved in a way less doubtful than that which was the object of his question? If the acts of the Milan commission were proper to be inquired into, not only as proving acts of active agency in the commission itself, but as showing the objects of those employed under it; by the same rule, both in law and in common sense, it was equally competent for their lordships to inquire what those well-known, and recognised, and active agents had been doing, for the purpose of attacking the character and conduct of the Princess of Wales. The learned gentleman concluded by protesting against the objection, which might, with equal reason, have been applied to the exclusion of any other evidence on the part of her Majesty, against the evidence adduced in support of the bill; and declaring that this question, and questions of a similar character, must be allowed, before they could hope, effectively, to defend the cause and interests of her Majesty.

The Lord-Chancellor wished to ask the learned counsel at the bar whether the whole of the evidence on which they relied for the purpose of showing that Sacchi was an active agent, or indeed an agent of any kind, was to be found at 448, the page cited, (Ch. p. 475.) or not? He saw this question, and thought it might well be looked at, in two views: first, as to whether Sacchi was an agent; and, secondly, supposing him not to have been an agent, whether this sort of conduct was such as to affect the evidence already given by him as a witness in this cause. There were two ways of proceeding here: the one assuming him to be an agent-the other assuming him to be a witness only. If they would prove his (Sacchi's) agency, they must prove what he had doneif, on the other hand, they went to impeach his credit as a witness, then the question should be, whether he should not have been asked as to the fact now charged against him before and the House would determine if they would call him back or not.

Mr. Denman, in answer, craved leave to refer their lordships to page $44 of the evidence, (Ch. p. 391.)

where Madame Demont deposed to applications made. to her, as follows:

"Where did you go to then?-From Switzerland here into Eng land.

"Who desired you to go to Milan, in order to be examined?—M. Sacchi came to seek for me, on the part of the commission.

"Who is M. Sacchi?-An Italian gentleman, &c.

"What is he besides a gentleman ?—I do not know what he is; he was a soldier, but I don't know where he is at present; he was an officer.

"Did you know of his being an officer ?—Yes, &c.

"He also had been in the service of the Princess, had he?—Yes. "When he came for you, he was no longer in the service of the Princess?-No.

"And at that time he was in the service of the Milan commission, was he?-I do not know in what service he was.

"Employed by them?-I know that he came to seek for me, or fetch me, but I do not know whether he was employed otherwise." These were the only parts of Madame Demont's evidence wherein the agency of Sacchi was spoken of.

Mr. Parke observed, that his learned friend Mr. Denman had dealt somewhat in generals with respect to Sacchi; but when he was asked for the proof and illustration of his remarks, as they were to be derived from the evidence, they appeared to be confined to the facts of Sacchi's having gone to Switzerland for Madame Demont, and to Scharnitz, for what purpose did not appear and therefore he (Mr. Parke) apprehended that, the question being without better foundation, it was impossible to admit it. How was it possible for their lordships, indeed, to allow that any act done by Sacchi in the capacity of a courier, a mere courier, should be made a ground for causing other questions to be put to him upon a re-examination? It would be contrary to every rule of evidence and law, and upon any showing, he submitted that the question, propounded was quite inadmissible.

The Lord Chancellor was of opinion, because of the two ways in which this matter, as he had observed, might be viewed-and, first of all, in order to see what was the purport of Sacchi's evidence-that the minutes of that evidence should be read over, which he would do. [Here the noble lord read from p. 344 (Ch. p 391.) that extract which has been just given in the course of Mr. Denman's last speech; then from 448, (Ch. p. 475-6.) so much of the same evidence as will be found in the preceding speech of the same gentleman, commencing with the question "Were you ever at Colombier ?" &c., Def. Part 2.1

and down to "I cannot swear when I am in doubt;” and finally, from page 371-2: (Ch. p. 421.)]

"You have said more than once that at the time you wrote that letter you were much attached to her Royal Highness, when did that attachment cease?-This attachment ceased when I heard that her Royal Highness had said several things of me in the house of her Royal Highness; that several things had been said of me in the house of her Royal Highness.

"Was in consequence of that attachment having ceased in the manner you have described that you have been induced to come into the House to give your evidence?-No.

"What is your inducement to come?—I was asked to come to declare the truth.

By whom?-By M. Sacchi, on the part of the commission." The Lord Chancellor then continued. Sacchi, he thought, was certainly a witness. The first question would then naturally be, whether, under the present circumstances, and taking him to be a witness, they could put this question as to Sacchi, with a view to im peach his evidence? With respect to Restelli, the advice their lordships had received from high legal autho rity was, if he spoke correctly, that the general rule of Jaw was this:They could not call a witness to prove whether a declaration was made by another witness, for the purpose of trying the truth of the assertion, without they first asked the question of the declaring witness himself. This was done in the instance of Majochig as to Restelli, their lordships had thought it right to call him back to their bar, but he was not then forthcoming. There was another party, of the name of Riganti; and, with respect to him, the evidence given in support of the bill had certainly gone to prove that Riganti had been sent for the purpose of procuring witnesses, and of collecting evidence; but, before such evidence was admitted, it would be in the recollection of the House, that a witness had been called in defence of the bill, who proved certain acts of Riganti; and he (the LordChancellor) apprehended that they could not reject or stop that sort of testimony till they got to the proof that the evidence of the acts of Riganti was not to be believed. The question for their lordships was simply this-Could they upon this question, because Sacchi had been a witness in the cause, now ask for his alleged declarations, when they had already had the opportu nity of telling him what those declarations were, without so telling him? The course to be pursued was, in his apprehension, this-If they meant to make Sacchi's

BODLEIAW

16 JAN 1954

LIBRARY

declaration evidence, Sacchi ought to be called in, and asked if he had made it. This course would depend naturally upon the opinion of their lordships as to whether the acts of Sacchi constituted him an agent or no; or whether they collected from the evidence that be had any character, beyond that of a messenger, to bring witnesses before the commission, being employed for such a purpose; or whether, if they did, such circumstances did, or did not, affect the credit of Sacchi?

Lord Erskine agreed with the latter part of the noble and learned lord's definition of the question; viz., whether these acts did not go to affect Sacchi's credit. It was so long ago since he practised the profession of an advocate, that he could hardly speak with any degree of knowledge upon what might be the general feeling which would now be entertained by that profession; but he knew this-that, at the time when he formed. one of them, if a witness had been examined to give one tittle of evidence on either side, and he had afterwards found out that that witness had been bringing up other and fresh witnesses, and he (Lord Erskine) could have proved that the man himself was a corrupt person, endeavouring to beat up for new evidence, he would have said, it was quite clear that there was enough established against such a witness utterly to discredit his testimony. He thought the proper course would be, not to call back Sacchi in the first instance, but immediately then to proceed with the examination of the last witness (Salvadore).

Earl Grey felt bound to concur in some of the prin ciples laid down by the noble and learned lord. If their lordships agreed to examine any thing but the acts of any persons, or any thing which was not immediately connected with specific acts, it would open, he feared, a door for the most dangerous encroachments on the laws of evidence, and go so far to make the present proceeding almost interminable, that he found himself, however reluctantly, compelled to reject such evidence as that whose admission was contended for, great as might be the difficulty of obtaining it of a more direct and substantial nature. But he would first ask, how did they stand in this particular case? Upon very different grounds. There was, perhaps, no strict legal technical proof of agency adduced; but there was a great connexion established between Sacchi and the Milan com

mission as must induce their lordships to hear what had been done by Sacchi, in the prosecution of his employment, the obtaining of witnesses, in order that they might ascertain whether he could be proved to have attempted to corrupt some of them. He (Lord Grey) said, therefore, that though there was not, here, that direct proof, which in all cases the law would require in the courts below, yet there was that established which must make their lordships think it right to pursue the inquiry, even in the absence of such complete proof. But it did appear to him that the ground for such further examination and inquiry was this-that the matter before them affected the credit of Sacchi. What was the fact? Sacchi was a witness in this cause; and be had been endeavouring to corrupt other witnesses. Who would believe him? Who could suppose that a man who had been attempting to purchase the perjury of others would have any scruple in swearing falsely himself.

The Earl of Liverpool could not decide whether it would be better to call back Sacchi first, or allow the' question in dispute to be propounded to the witness. But there were points in the speech of the noble earl (Grey) in which he by no means concurred. If Sacchi had been sent to Lausanne to procure witnesses generally, on that ground this information of the witness was to be admitted. The degree of Sacchi's agency in that case would justify such an admission; but as, in the evidence before the House, there was no ground whatever for believing that Sacchi was sent for other purposes besides the special purpose of bringing Mademoiselle Demont, there could be no ground whatever for his conduct on that occasion being the cause of such a course as that proposed by the noble earl. The case was very different from that of Riganti, who was proved to have been otherwise employed.

Earl Grey explained, and contended that, if the corruption of Sacchi could be proved, he was not to be believed.

The Earl of Lauderdale expressed his entire dissent from the noble earl (Grey).

The Solicitor-General wished to know whether the question intended by his learned friend was to be put for the purpose of ascertaining any thing which had been said by Sacchi, or upon what other grounds? He'